Theorising Urban Development From The Global South Anjali Karol Mohan Full Chapter PDF

Theorising Urban Development From
the Global South Anjali Karol Mohan

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/theorising-urban-development-from-the-global-south-
anjali-karol-mohan/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Urban Planning in the Global South 1st ed. Edition

Richard De Satgé
https://ebookmass.com/product/urban-planning-in-the-global-
south-1st-ed-edition-richard-de-satge/
International Law and Development in the Global South

Emeka Duruigbo
https://ebookmass.com/product/international-law-and-development-
in-the-global-south-emeka-duruigbo/
Deindustrialization, Distribution, and Development:

Structural Change in the Global South Andy Sumner
https://ebookmass.com/product/deindustrialization-distribution-
and-development-structural-change-in-the-global-south-andy-
sumner/
Informal Workers and Organized Action: Narratives From

the Global South Choudhary
https://ebookmass.com/product/informal-workers-and-organized-
action-narratives-from-the-global-south-choudhary/
The Future of Television in the Global South:
Reflections from Selected Countries George Ogola
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-future-of-television-in-the-
global-south-reflections-from-selected-countries-george-ogola/
Visual Politics in the Global South Anastasia Veneti
https://ebookmass.com/product/visual-politics-in-the-global-
south-anastasia-veneti/
Social Policies and Emotions: A Look from the Global

South 1st Edition Angélica De Sena
https://ebookmass.com/product/social-policies-and-emotions-a-
look-from-the-global-south-1st-edition-angelica-de-sena/
Vanishing Borders of Urban Local Finance: Global

Developments with Illustrations from Indian Federation
Shyam Nath
https://ebookmass.com/product/vanishing-borders-of-urban-local-
finance-global-developments-with-illustrations-from-indian-
federation-shyam-nath/
Disinformation in the Global South 1st Edition Herman

Wasserman
https://ebookmass.com/product/disinformation-in-the-global-
south-1st-edition-herman-wasserman/
Theorising Urban
Development From the
Global South
Edited by
Anjali Karol Mohan
Sony Pellissery
Juliana Gómez Aristizábal
Theorising Urban Development
From the Global South
Anjali Karol Mohan · Sony Pellissery ·
Editors
Theorising Urban
Development
From the Global
South
Editors
Anjali Karol Mohan Sony Pellissery
Institute of Public Policy Institute of Public Policy
National Law School of India National Law School of India
University University
Bengaluru, India Bengaluru, India

Center of Urban
and Environmental Studies
EAFIT University
Medellín, Colombia
ISBN 978-3-030-82474-7 ISBN 978-3-030-82475-4 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82475-4
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer
Nature Switzerland AG 2021
Chapters 1 and 11 are licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). For further details
see license information in the chapters.
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc.
in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such
names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for
general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and informa-
tion in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither
the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been
made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Preface and Acknowledgements
The last quarter of the twentieth century witnessed the Southern city at
the centre-stage of policy and scholarly debates. Gradually, with the global
South establishing itself as the epicentre of urbanism, the twenty-first
century is increasingly recognised as the century of the city. Notably, the
twenty-first- century city is vividly and vastly distinct from the earlier cities,
located primarily in the Euro-American world. Paradoxically, urban theo-
ries and ensuing planning practices that attempt to manage and steer the
twenty-first- century Southern city continue to be embedded within the
urban experience of global North. That these are not contextual renders
them both inappropriate and inadequate while triggering a call for new
planning pathways and vocabularies that speak to, and derive from the
socio-cultural, political and economic contexts of the global South.
This volume is a response to this call. The works contained in this
edited volume marks the culmination of a two-year engagement that
included a two-part Seminar Series funded by the Urban Studies Foun-
dation (USF). Organised in Medellin in Colombia (Latin America) in
2019 and Bangalore in India (Asia) in early 2020, the series titled as
“The ‘Southern Turn’ in the Urban: Embedded Wisdom and Cultural
Specificity as Pathways to Planning,” sought to engage with the larger,
oft-repeated ontological question that continues to hold—why and what
does theory from the South mean?
John Friedman’s observation in the early 1990s on a shift to a ‘non-
Euclidian world of many space-time geographies’ was among the early
v
vi PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
calls to re-inventing planning theory and practice. As scholarly and policy

debates gain momentum, deeper acknowledgements that position the
global South as a relational geography with distinct, intersecting histo-
ries embodying specific socio-cultural and political dynamics, as against
it being positioned as a static location or mere set of places, further
strengthens the call for context-specific planning theory and practice.
The two seminars explored historical trajectories of the global South,
their juxtaposition with contemporary urbanisation processes, attendant
challenges and creative responses across diverse, yet similar contexts of the
global South. The series put forth a two-fold objective: to unpack and
foreground the inefficacy and inappropriateness of the formal planning
and governance mechanisms that aim to steer the burgeoning Southern
City; and, explore the urbanising logic and embedded knowledge systems
of distinct socio-spatial signifiers that characterise the Southern city as
conduits to planning theory(s) and praxes.
Apart from research shared and discussed during the series, keynote
addresses by Alejandro Echeverri, Director URBAM, Prof. Smita Srinivas
(Technological Change Lab, MIT), Justice Gautam Patel (High Court of
Bombay) and Bijal Brahmbhatt (Director, Mahila Housing SEWA Trust,
Ahmedabad) were insightful and thought-provoking. In addition, city
visits in Medellin and Bangalore provided an opportunity for mutual
learning and collective thinking on a grounded understanding on cities of
the global South. Though geographically and culturally apart, this collec-
tive reflection reinforced the conviction to work towards a theory from
the global South.
Taking cues from the collective engagement across the two seminars,
this volume conceptualises the global South as a simultaneously homoge-
neous and heterogeneous geography, while endorsing it as one that is rela-
tional and processual. Accordingly, the volume is divided into two parts.
The first part—‘The Homogeneous South: Emerging Planning Territo-
ries’ has four chapters that speak pre-dominantly to the homogeneous
mode of space production. The second part—‘The Heterogeneous South:
Conflicting Rationalities’ has five chapters that speak to the heterogeneous
mode of space production. The Southern city is positioned as a result of
the interaction between the homogeneous and heterogeneous modes of
space production. In categorising the chapters our intention is to move
away from a binary and discrete mode to one that is recursive. Chapters
in both sections direct their enquiries to the other.
PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vii
Several academics and scholars and practitioners participated in the

seminars at both universities. Though we could not include all the
papers presented, their participation and engagement is acknowledged
and highly appreciated. These include Mariana Alegre (Peru), AGA
Studio (Venezuela), Isabel Basombrío (Colombia), Pedro Henrique de
Cristo (Brazil), Santiago Mejía-Dugand (Colombia), Alfredo Hidalgo
Rasmussen (Mexico) and Humberto Barrera (Colombia), Debarun Sarkar
(Mumbai), Bianca Shah (Ahmedabad), Cheshta Arora, Shantala V and
Roshan Thomas (Bangalore) and Marianne Millstein (Oslo). Their pres-
ence while adding value to the discussions during the seminars, also
contributes to the reflections in this volume.
Finally, this volume would not have been possible without the support
of The Urban Studies Foundation which continued its support much
beyond the organisation of the Seminar Series, and, Ian McDonald for
his impeccable copy-editing skills.
In solidarity with those seeking a new urbanism in the global South.
Bengaluru, India Anjali Karol Mohan

Bengaluru, India Sony Pellissery
Medellín, Colombia Juliana Gómez Aristizábal
Contents
1 Introduction—Exploring Urban ‘Southernness’:

Praxes and Theory(s) 1
Anjali Karol Mohan
Part I The Homogeneous South: Emerging Planning

Territories
2 The Production of Suburban Space Through
Metropolitan Governance in a Global South City
Region 31
Sarani Khatua
3 Planning for the Urban Mosaic of a Megacity: The
Case of Urban Villages in Delhi 57
Banashree Banerjee
4 Reimagining Urban Development in a Tribal Region:
Readings on a Fifth Schedule Area of India 81
Aashish Xaxa
5 Urban Planning Practices in China: Struggling
Between Politics and the Market 101
Zhi Liu and Peiming Wang
ix
x CONTENTS
Part II The Heterogeneous South: Conflicting

Rationalities
6 Invisible Territories: The Visibility of an Urban Crisis
in Medellín 127
Edwar A. Calderón
7 Defensive Urban Citizenship: A View
from Southeastern Tel Aviv 149
Oren Yiftachel and Nir Cohen
8 Everyday Practices and Public Space
(Re-)Appropriation in El Cisne Dos, Guayaquil 175
Xavier Méndez Abad, Hans Leinfelder,
and Kris W. B. Scheerlinck
9 Situated Modernities: Socio-Spatial Co-Production
in Namibia 197
Guillermo Delgado
10 Planning and Pentecostalism in the Spatial
(Re-)Configuration of Lagos 221
Taibat Lawanson
11 A Grammar for Transformative Urbanism 247
Sony Pellissery and Juliana Gómez Aristizábal
Index 279
Notes on Contributors
Xavier Méndez Abad is a Ph.D. candidate at KU Leuven, Department

of Architecture, in the Research Group Urban Projects, Collective Spaces
and Local Identities. After graduating as an architect from the University
of Cuenca, he obtained a Master of Science in Architecture at Politecnico
di Milano in 2016. His ongoing research explores the interplay between
collective spaces, everyday practices and urban informality in consolidated
informal urban areas in Guayaquil, Ecuador. Currently, he is also involved
in academic activities focusing on urban co-production and participatory
design.
Juliana Gómez Aristizábal is an architect from the National University
of Colombia with an MSc in Urban Planning and Policy Design from the
Politecnico di Milano. She worked for the Urban Development Enter-
prise (EDU) as an architect in the Integral Urban Project (PUI) of the
central-eastern zone as part of the implementation of the Social Urbanism
strategy in Medellin. She was the designer of one of the educational
parks of the regional development plan ‘Antioquia la más Educada 2012-
2015’. Since 2014 she is part of the multidisciplinary team of the Center
of Urban and Environmental Studies—urbam at EAFIT University in
Medellin where she has worked in different strategic planning projects
and urban design projects that integrate the social, the physical and the
environmental dimensions from a more comprehensive perspective. Since
2020 she is leading the Master’s programme in Urban and Environmental
Processes at urbam EAFIT.
xi
xii NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS
Banashree Banerjee is an architect, urban planner, researcher and

teacher. She works as an independent consultant and also as an asso-
ciate staff member of the Institute for Housing and Urban Development
Studies, Rotterdam and visiting faculty member at the School of Plan-
ning and Architecture, New Delhi and CEPT University, Ahmedabad.
In a career spanning more than four decades, the focus of her work has
been on inclusive approaches to urban planning and management and
city-wide approaches to improvement of informal settlements in a number
of cities. Her other interest is urban land management, in which she has
considerable experience related to practice, research and teaching.
Edwar A. Calderón is a Postdoctoral Researcher at Universidad EAFIT,
on the GCRF PEAK Urban Project. His interdisciplinary research spans
urban development, human geography, architecture and education in
geographies of conflict, with a specific interest in the (re)production of
space, spatial justice, and urban transformations in marginal contexts.
Since 2008, he has been working on community participatory research-
based projects. From 2016 his research interest has focused on socio-
spatial transformations in vulnerable communities in Colombia. His
current research ‘Urban morphology of displacement in Medellin’ focuses
on the socio-spatial analysis of displacement resettlement process of
victims of the armed conflict in Colombia. Recently, he led a research
project combining quantitative and qualitative research methods that
investigates ways to improve housing policies for displaced communities
who live in marginal settlements.
Nir Cohen is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Geography and
Environment at Bar Ilan University. His research interests include state–
diaspora relations, the politics of migration and citizenship and urban
social geographies in Israel. His work on policies towards skilled migrants,
stratified citizenship and socio-spatial relations in Israeli cities has appeared
in such journals as IJURR, Cities, Population, Space and Place, Environ-
ment and Planning D, Social and Cultural Geography and Geoforum.
In spring 2018 he was Visiting Fellow of Jewish Migration at The
Parkes Institute for Jewish/Non-Jewish Relations at the University of
Southampton, UK. In 2019 he was Visiting Professor for Urban Studies
at TU Vienna, Austria. His co-edited book Care and the City: Encounters
with Urban Studies is forthcoming (Winter 2021) with Routledge.
Guillermo Delgado is an architect from Universidad Iberoamericana
(UIA, Mexico City). He holds a master’s in architecture from the Berlage
Institute in Rotterdam, the Netherlands; and a doctoral degree from the
NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS xiii
University of Cape Town (UCT) in South Africa. Currently he is an

adjunct researcher at the Department of Land and Property Sciences, at
the Namibia University of Science and Technology (NUST) where he
coordinates the ‘Land, livelihoods and housing’ Programme at the Inte-
grated Land Management Institute (ILMI), and has supervised students
in their theses and work-integrated learning. He has also taught research
methods, urbanisation and housing at NUST. He was previously an asso-
ciate researcher at the Labour Resource and Research Institute (LaRRI)
from 2011 to 2014, where he worked on issues of housing and living
conditions. He also worked with Cohabitation Strategies (CohStra) in
projects about alternative urban development in the Netherlands, France
and Canada. He has served on different public projects and committees
in Namibia.
Sarani Khatua is a Geographer and a former Postdoctoral Researcher at
the Centre for Urban Economic Studies (CUES), University of Calcutta
with UGC-Dr S Radhakrishnan Fellowship in Humanities and Social
Sciences. She was an ICSSR-Doctoral student at the Centre for Studies
in Social Sciences, Calcutta (CSSSC) and obtained her Doctor of Philos-
ophy from the University of Calcutta. Previously, she has also worked
in field-based projects in research think-tank, Centre for Policy Research
and Kolkata-based NGO, Change Initiatives. She is interested in contem-
porary issues of low-income urban settlements, urban space, and their
relevant policies, politics and processes.
Taibat Lawanson is an Associate Professor of Urban Planning at the
University of Lagos, Nigeria where she leads the Pro-Poor Development
research cluster, and serves as Co-director of the Centre for Housing and
Sustainable Development. She holds a Ph.D. in Urban and Regional Plan-
ning from the Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria. Taibat’s
research focuses on the interface of social complexities, urban realities
and the pursuit of spatial justice. Over the last twenty years, she has
taught, conducted research and published over 60 papers in the areas
of informality, urban management, pro-poor development and gover-
nance in African contexts. She is a member of the editorial/editorial advi-
sory boards of Urban Studies, Urban Forum and Area Development and
Policy journals. She also serves as advisory board member for UNHAB-
ITAT flagship ‘State of the World’s Cities’ report. Taibat is a member
of the board of directors of the Lagos Studies Association, an alumna of
xiv NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS
the Rockefeller Foundation Bellagio Centre and a pioneer World Social

Science Fellow of the International (Social) Science Council.
Hans Leinfelder Hans is an Associate Professor in planning policy and
planning theory at the Faculty of Architecture and a member of the
P.PUL research group at the Department of Architecture of KU Leuven,
Belgium. He has more than 25 years of experience, both in academia and
in policymaking at the national level in Belgium. His academic research
has focused on substantive and instrumental aspects of planning policy,
with a specific preference for planning challenges concerning open space
in peri-urban contexts.
Zhi Liu is a Senior Research Fellow and China Program Director,
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, and Director of Peking University-
Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy; co-
editor for International Housing Market Experience and Implications for
China, Routledge. Previously as an infrastructure specialist at the World
Bank, Dr. Zhi Liu had operational experience in East Asia and South Asia,
where he managed investment lending projects and analytical and advisory
activities in the infrastructure and urban sectors. Before joining the World
Bank, he was a research associate with the Harvard Institute for Interna-
tional Development. He also taught city and regional planning at Nanjing
University. He serves as a member of the Expert Committee for Human
Settlements, Ministry of Housing and Urban and Rural Development,
China.
Anjali Karol Mohan is a Geographer Planner with a Ph.D. in urban
(e)governance and management. She is a partner at Integrated Design,
Bangalore where her practice and research experience for close to three
decades straddles urban planning and management, organisational and
institutional frameworks and information and communication technolo-
gies and development (ICTD) She is a faculty at the Institute of Public
Policy, National Law School of India University, Bangalore. She teaches
courses on cities, urbanisation and planning and, urban governance and
management with a special focus on the Southern city. She has published
in academic journals and in popular media, in addition to delivering talks
and presenting her work globally. She is a Council Member of the Inter-
national Federation for Housing and Planning as well as the Institute of
Town Planners of India.
NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS xv
Sony Pellissery is Professor and Director of the Institute of Public

Policy, National Law School of India University, Bangalore. His special
interests are in the areas of distributive justice, land policies and social
rights. After his doctoral degree from Oxford University, he served as
an Associate Professor at the Institute of Rural Management, Anand.
He has won the India Social Science Research Award (2009) and Ram
Reddy Memorial Social Science Award (2015) for his academic contribu-
tions. His papers have appeared in Town Planning Review, Economic and
Political Weekly, Journal of Social Policy, Gender and Development and
International Journal of Social Welfare.
Kris W. B. Scheerlinck is an architect, urban designer and the founder
and director of the Streetscape Territories Research Practice. He is an
Associate Professor at KU Leuven where he is Head of the Research
Group ‘Urban Projects, Collective Spaces and Local Identities’. He directs
research and design projects on the making of the urban landscape
and, besides consultancy and teaching, promotes related Ph.D. research
projects at several universities.
Peiming Wang is a Professor of City Planning, School of Architecture
and Planning, Yunnan University, China. Prof. Wang is a member of
City Planning Association of China, and the elected vice chair of Urban
Science Research Association of Yunnan Province. She serves as a planning
adviser to a number of local government agencies in Yunnan, including
the Provincial Department of Housing and Urban and Rural Develop-
ment, Provincial Department of Natural Resources and Kunming Munic-
ipal Bureau of Planning. She was a professional city planner with the
Yunnan Urban and Rural Planning and Design Institute before joining
the faculty of Yunnan University.
Aashish Xaxa has been an ICSSR Doctoral Fellow in the School of
Development Studies at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai. He
has recently completed his Ph.D. His broader research is on the urbani-
sation and the changing cityscapes of India with a focus on unexplored
aspects of equity and social justice. His Ph.D. research looks into the
interests of tribes/indigenous peoples of Central and North-East India,
with special reference to urbanisation, constitutional and legal provisions,
and the issues of development, land tenure systems, local governance and
democracy, alienation and deprivation, from a comparative perspective.
He has been trained in development theories and histories, tribes in the
contemporary world, as well as in qualitative and quantitative methods of
research in urban sociology.
xvi NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS
Oren Yiftachel teaches political geography and urban planning. He

holds the Lloyd Hurst Family Chair in Urban Studies at Ben-Gurion
University, Israel and is an Honorary Professor at UCL Departments
of Geography and DPU (Bartlett). His research has focused on crit-
ical understandings of the relations between space, power and society,
with particular interest in an international comparative analysis of
Israel/Palestine. He has published more than 100 papers and ten books.
In addition, he is an activist associated with a range of human rights and
civil society organisations such as the regional council for unrecognised
Bedouin villages, Charing B’Tselem—monitoring human rights viola-
tions in the Palestinian Territories; and researcher at Adva—Center for
Equality. Recently, he co-founded a new decolonising peace movement
for Israel/Palestine—‘A Land for All’.
List of Figures
Fig. 4.1 Plot Map of the Greater Ranchi Area (Adapted from map
available on Greater Ranchi Development Agency
[GRDA] public domain) 87
Fig. 5.1 Typical gated community design in China (Source
Downloaded from a Chinese website: http://www.lus
hifu.cc/other/136324.html, accessed May 10, 2021) 115
Fig. 5.2 A copycat town in the city of Hangzhou (Source Sui
et al., 2017) 117
Fig. 5.3 An urban village being demolished for redevelopment
in Guangzhou, 2019 (Source Lan Song) 118
Fig. 6.1 Left—1500 social-housing “solutions”, MIA
(Mestizo-Indigena-Afrodescendiente) on the outskirts
of Quibdó, Chocó, Colombia; Right—Massive
social-housing project, “Ciudadela de Occidente”,
in Medellín (goal to 2020: 23,000 housing units)
(Source Left—Photo courtesy of Santiago Chiquito;
Right—Alcaldía de Medellín) 138
Fig. 6.2 Google Earth snapshots of the informal settlement
of Granizal on the outskirts of Medellín at three different
dates: September 2009, September 2011, and June
2014. This is the second-largest informal settlement
in the country caused by the resettlement of displaced
populations (Source © 2019 Maxar Technologies
via Google Earth Pro) 141
xvii
xviii LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 6.3 Participatory community mapping methods: community

leaders drawing and “visibilising” their own territory
over a map of the city (Source Photos by author) 142
Fig. 6.4 A. location of the 32 water tanks; B. UVA Los Sueños:
water tank in 2004; C and D. Project aerials in 2016
(Source Images courtesy of EPM and Alcaldía de
Medellín) 143
Fig. 7.1 Tel Aviv 1940: primary northward development
trajectory (Source The authors, adapted from Marom
[2009]) 156
Fig. 7.2 The southern and eastern neighborhoods forming south
Tel Aviv 157
Fig. 8.1 Temporary food kiosks in the perimeter of La Pista
Photograph taken in El Cisne Dos in 2018 187
Fig. 8.2 Neighbors playing bingo on the streets in front of La
Pista Photograph taken in El Cisne Dos in 2018 189
Fig. 8.3 Fenced gardens along Tramo 5—Guayaquil Ecológico
Photograph taken in El Cisne Dos in 2018 191
Fig. 9.1 Diagram of actors involved in the development of land
for housing in urban areas in Namibia throughout
the decades. Red lines indicate actors involved
in the bottom-up processes described below (see 9.3.2)
(Source Delgado [2018, 2019]) 205
Fig. 9.2 Twahangana Fund since 1995: channelling over N$180
million (about US$11 million) directly to the urban poor
of Namibia (Source Adapted from NHAG and SDFN
[2019, p. 12]) 209
Fig. 9.3 Comparison of statutory and bottom-up processes. Half
squares in the diagram indicate only partial engagement
(Source [Statutory processes—Genis, forthcoming; Ulrich
& Meurers, 2015]. Bottom-up processes—National
Alliance for Informal Settlement Upgrading [2020a]) 212
Fig. 11.1 Communication model for transformative urbanism
(Source The authors) 261
Map 2.1 The Kolkata Metropolitan Area, with New Town

in the east (Adapted from KMA map from the KMDA
available on public domain http://kmdaonline.org/
ludcp/home) 38
Map 2.2 Pujali Municipality in the Kolkata Metropolitan Area
(Adapted from KMA map from the KMDA available
on public domain http://kmdaonline.org/ludcp/home) 40
LIST OF FIGURES xix
Map 2.3 Howrah–Bally in the Kolkata Metropolitan Area

(Adapted from KMA map from the KMDA available
on public domain http://kmdaonline.org/ludcp/home) 45
Map 10.1 Lagos and Ogun states, showing the peri-urban interface
(Source Taibat Lawanson field work) 228
Map 10.2 Prayer camps and cities along the Lagos–Ibadan
Expressway, September 2020 (Source Taibat Lawanson
field work) 229
List of Tables
Table 3.1 Distribution of population in different housing

typologies in Delhi, 2001 66
Table 7.1 ‘Please assess the threat to Shapira from these future
developments’—Entire survey population (in %; N =
242) 164
Table 7.2 ‘Please assess the threat to Shapira from the entry
of foreigners’ (in %; N = 242) 165
Table 7.3 ‘Please assess the threat to Shapira from high-rise
buildings’ (in %; N = 242) 165
Table 7.4 ‘Please assess the threat to Shapira from gentrification’
(in %; N = 242) 165
Table 10.1 Planning-permit applications by MFM 236
xxi
CHAPTER 1
Introduction—Exploring Urban
‘Southernness’: Praxes and Theory(s)
Anjali Karol Mohan
1.1 Introduction
The Global South is an acknowledged enigma—a site that simultaneously
evokes anxiety and excitement. The realization that soon, a majority of
the world’s population will reside in cities of the developing world has
led to a call for a corresponding shift in urban theory—away from the
current dominant theorization and practice anchored within the geopo-
litical realities of the Global North. Epistemologically, this shift engages
with the Global South as a project, perspective and provocation (Bhan
et al., 2018). While there is no unified conceptualization of what consti-
tutes the Global South, there is an emerging consensus on what it isn’t
and a recognition of (if not consensus on) the fragments that constitute
it.
A. K. Mohan (B)
Institute of Public Policy, National Law School University of India,
Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
e-mail: anjalimohan@nls.ac.in
© The Author(s) 2021 1

A. K. Mohan et al. (eds.), Theorising Urban Development From the Global
South, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82475-4_1
2 A. K. MOHAN
Scholars distance themselves from the notion of the Southern city as

a discrete, static and bounded geography. Instead, they highlight its rela-
tional nature in terms of overlapping territories and intertwined histories
(Miraftab & Kudva, 2015, p. 4) and its processual nature in terms of
transmutable forms of movement, encounter and exchange (Roy, 2009a,
p. 821). Thus, while some view it as ‘post-colonial contexts where local
and provincial governments are rather belated constructions with limited
fiscal and human capacity and with incomplete administrative systems at
their disposal’ (Parnell & Pieterse, 2010, p. 150) others see it as ‘modes
of production of space marked by a specific temporality and agency that
engages transversally with official logics of law, property, and labour’
(Caldeira, 2017, p. 3). Largely, however, the ‘Southern city’ refers to
geographies in which assumptions of techno-managerial determinism and
the modernistic ideals of entrenched planning models borrowed from
the North are both inappropriate and inadequate for conceptualizing
and intervening in its urban realities. The Southern city represents ‘new’
materialities of socio-spatial forms, modes of space production and state–
society relations (McFarlane, 2008; Roy, 2012), and therefore demands a
retelling—in theory and in praxis.
Arguments that position the Southern city as a ‘new geography of
theory’ (Roy, 2009a, p. 819) demand a simultaneous grounding in
and ‘worlding’ of the South (Roy, 2009a, p. 828). Framing the rapid
urbanization processes and attendant dynamics of inequality, informality
and spatial fragmentation of Southern urbanism as agendas for action
and sites of knowledge production (Watson, 2009a) can potentially
allow for a pragmatic and ambitious reimagination of the Southern city.
Pragmatically, such framing should respond to the socio-environmental
challenges in grounded, feasible and meaningful ways. Ambitiously, it
should bring together the specificities and similarities of these myriad sites
of knowledge production in order to establish the specific materialities
and modalities of Southern urbanism as the ‘ordinary’ (Robinson, 2006,
p. 1), in relation not just to urban realities but also to the global urban
question (Mabin, 2014).
Embarking from such a standpoint, this volume acknowledges and
embraces the contrariness of the South—not as matter of concern but
as a ‘new geography of theory’ (Roy, 2009a, p. 819). Its chapters—
spanning cities in India, Colombia, Ecuador, China, Israel, Namibia and
Nigeria—critique existing and entrenched planning models and explore
the urban reality created because of, and around, these institutionalized
1 INTRODUCTION—EXPLORING URBAN ‘SOUTHERNNESS’ … 3
models in order to discuss context-specific forms of practice, intervention

and engagement. While leveraging the contradictions, complexity and
hybridity of empirical specificities as entry points for understanding and
theorizing the Southern city, the volume maintains a simultaneous view
for generalizability towards mutual learning within and across contexts
(Roy, 2009a, p. 820).
Overall, this volume focuses on two issues: (a) how, and to what extent,
these geographies can learn from each other given their commonalities as
well as their sociocultural specificities, and (b) how this mutual-learning
process can inform a planning approach and theory seen ‘from the South’.
In doing so, it seeks to contribute to what Galland and Elinbaum (2018,
following the concept coined by Bourdieu, 2002) refer to as the ‘field’ [of
urban planning] under construction. It offers ‘fragments’ of the urban
that provide clues to the larger, oft-repeated ontological question that
continues to hold: Why and what does theory from the South mean?
(Mohan et al., 2020, p. 6). The objective it sets for itself is not the
production of neat theories or models but an assemblage of anchored
conduits that can be contextually adapted to respond to the ephemeral,
complex and dynamic nature of Southern urban realities.
In setting the tone, this introductory chapter seeks to distil and
discusses the call for new geographies of theory. Drawing on the thematic
conceptualization of the South as a simultaneously homogeneous and
heterogeneous space (Mohan et al., 2020), the volume embraces the
Global South as a relational and a ‘process geography’ having emerged
as a product of the interaction between two planes of space produc-
tion: the homogeneous and the heterogenous. The homogeneous is
the space of institutionalized practices—deriving from shared colonial
history and postcolonial development narrative—that seeks to control,
codify and categorize the urban. That these homogenizing practices
occurred over varying timelines, intersecting with distinct and specific
precolonial histories, brings in a degree of heterogeneity, which mani-
fests itself in emerging urban forms—slums, sprawls, the peri-urban,
suburban settlements—marked by temporal, incremental and flexible
dynamics. The heterogeneous is thus the empirical space that has emerged
as a result of the overlaying of homogeneous codifications—‘bound-
aries drawn onto’—on context-specific everyday practices, knowledge and
imperatives—‘boundaries drawn by’.
4 A. K. MOHAN
Speaking to the South as being simultaneously homogeneous and

heterogenous, the volume is divided into two parts. Part I, ‘The Homo-
geneous South: Emerging Planning Territories’, draws on four chapters
that conceptualize homogeneity along two dimensions: (a) the transna-
tional historical processes that have generated similarities in the urban
experiences of diverse contexts, and (b) the homogenizing practices
embedded through these processes and their operation in the contem-
porary context. Part II, ‘The Heterogeneous South: Conflicting Ratio-
nalities’, has a further five chapters, which draw upon the heterogeneous
nature of urban reality and the logics that often subvert homogenizing
practices. These latter chapters conceptualize heterogeneity along two
dimensions: (a) the recursive processes of ‘drawing onto’ and ‘drawing
by’ that result in the creation of heterogeneous urban realities, and (b)
the intrinsic knowledge systems, modalities and materialities embedded
within these heterogeneous realities and their potential in triggering
urban innovation.
Notably, the volume conceptualizes the homogeneous and hetero-
geneous not as binaries—rather, these realms of space production are
positioned as recursive (as against being discrete). While being anchored
within a particular mode of production of space, chapters in either
section direct their enquiries to the other section. In doing so, they tease
out the juxtapositions that dislodge the binary conceptualization of the
two modes of spatial production while foregrounding spaces of mutual
learning between the two. The categorization, rather than connoting
operational distance between the two modes of spatial production, is thus
representative of the direction of theoretical enquiry. While the four chap-
ters in Part I engage with a dominant theoretical lens that moves from
the normative, institutionalized and abstracted space of urban planning
to the reality of urban experiences, the five chapters in Part II invert the
direction of theoretical enquiry by anchoring themselves within empirical
specificities in order to move towards institutionalized practices of spatial
production.
Following this introduction, Sect. 1.2 traces the burgeoning body
of Southern theory in order to highlight the imperatives upon which
it builds itself and the explorative directions that it identifies for itself.
Leveraging this understanding, Sect. 1.3 validates the conceptualization
of the South as a simultaneously homogeneous and heterogeneous space
towards enabling an ethos of mutual learning across and within contexts.
Subsection 1.3.1 draws out the characteristics that define the homoge-
neous realm of space production-boundaries ‘drawn onto’—in Southern
cities by focusing on the recursive processes of boundary-making and
unmaking that they engender. Subsection 1.3.2 draws out the characteris-
tics of the heterogeneous realm of space production in Southern cities by
focusing on the manner in which boundaries ‘drawn onto’ are subverted
into boundaries ‘drawn by’, leveraging embedded knowledge systems and
capacities. The insights from these two subsections are brought together
in the Discussion (Sect. 1.4), which highlights the acknowledged and
unacknowledged interlinkages between the homogeneous and hetero-
geneous realms of spatial production along three dimensions: power,
intention and modality. Subsection 1.4.1 draws out these interlinkages
from the standpoint of the homogeneous realm of space production while
Subsection 1.4.2 draws them out from the standpoint of the heteroge-
neous realm of space production. The Conclusion (Sect. 1.5) leverages
these interlinkages to argue for mutual learning between the homogeneity
and heterogeneity of Southern contexts as pathways towards alternative,
radical and grounded theory ‘from the South’.
1.2 The Southern Turn:

New Geographies of Theory
While the emerging call for Southern theory is a reaction to the percep-
tion of crisis within the global consciousness, it is also triggered by a
shift of majority of the urban population to the Southern cities (Bhan
et al., 2018; Mabin, 2014, p. 25; Watson 2009a; Roy, 2009a). The
unprecedented scale and pace of urbanization in these locations and their
manifestation in crises of climate change, resource depletion and rising
income inequalities is fast emerging as a stark reality, one that has trig-
gered a postcolonial shift in most social disciplines (Mabin, 2014)—the
urban included. This shift, in turn, has marked a self-reflective commit-
ment towards societal and moral objectives that marks a rejection of the
domination of theories and models from the North while exploring the
South as the new centre for urban-theory generation (Mabin, 2014). The
shift advocates foregrounding the complexity and diversity of the South as
precedent urban futures in order to build a ‘singular script’ (Mabin, 2014,
p. 22). That script, this chapter argues, should derive from and high-
light the inability (and, by extension, the inefficacy) of imported urban
planning models and theories to acknowledge and account for the urban
6 A. K. MOHAN
reality, and the ability of the latter to confound these borrowed models.
Currently, within the dominant discourse on the urban in general and
planning in particular, urban reality is reductively problematized while in
fact it embodies practical innovations (Mahadevia & Joshi, 2009; Nandy,
1998, p. 2; Watson, 2009a).
The inception of planning and urban governance in most Southern
cities arose through the vehicles of colonial occupation and imperialism.
Planning in these contexts began with the imperatives of creating accept-
able urban environments for foreign settlers, and extending administrative
control and sanitary conditions to the growing numbers of Indigenous
urban poor. Planning legislation, regulatory mechanisms and urban forms
carrying with them visions of the ideal, modernist city were embedded
by colonial governments in Southern contexts (Watson, 2009a). This
notion of modernity, imported from Euro–American contexts, privileged
positivist rationality and instilled techno-managerial determinism into
planning praxis. This imposition of the rational order (often equated
with the scientific) over all others (which were, by extension, irra-
tional/disorderly) devalued, disrupted and marginalized other knowledge
systems and socio-spatial orders even as cities continue to grow, inflected
by transnational processes and ideologies (Mohan et al., 2020, p. 6).
Post-independence these models/narratives continued with minimal
reform, with the dominant discourse of master plans or land-use plans
being applied across most Southern cities. The hierarchical and linear
ordering of such urbanisms continues to drive context-blind approaches
that pursued urban imaginaries of the ‘First World’ as the ideal and framed
urban realities of the ‘Third World’ as the problem (Mabin, 2014, p. 25).
Concerns for urban aesthetics, modernization and functional specializa-
tions continue to dominate urban planning praxis. In effect, this highly
regulatory approach coupled with tendencies to prioritize market inter-
ests has rendered the planning praxis in Southern cities culpable in the
creation and exacerbation of socio-spatial exclusion. Its stagnancy, there-
fore, is not accidental—nor is it easy to change (Watson, 2009a). Scholars
link the rigidity of these established planning mechanisms to the institu-
tionalization of the politics of accumulation and dispossession directed
by entrenched sociopolitical hierarchies and global market restructuring
(Mahadevia & Joshi, 2009, p. 3). However, it must be noted that the
power behind these models is not totalizing; within multiple spaces of
agency, mobilization and resistance can—and do—break out. As has
been previously argued within Southern scholarship, and is evidenced by
several scholars in this volume, imposed visions are subverted, adapted

and contested—often resulting in socio-spatial forms that operate outside
the realm of the formal.
The regulatory and context-blind approaches of the state implicitly,
if not explicitly, create the unplanned city (Nandy, 1998, p. 2) and its
socio-spatial signifiers—slums, squatter settlements, urban villages and
peri-urban communities, among them. Positioned as the ‘other’, these are
classified as the ‘informal’, which operate as exceptions to state-instituted
mandates of taxation and the supervisory and legalized regime of the
state. However, against the binary conceptualization of these informal
modes of praxis as either manifestations of economic marginality or
heroic entrepreneurialism, arguments that informality is in fact created
by, embedded within and extends to the differentiating practices of the
state (Appadurai, 2001; Roy, 2009b, 2012) are gaining momentum.
Empirical evidence of the embeddedness of and interaction between the
formal and the informal reveals how, rather than reflecting any intrinsic
distinction, the institutionalized binary categorizations of the formal–
informal, modern–provincial and rational–irrational are a reflection of
power hierarchies (Roy, 2012). This bolsters the proposition that it
is these institutionalized binaries that exacerbate spatial exclusion and
inequalities (Watson, 2009b).
With formal mechanisms unable to render cities liveable, a hybrid
network of actors, modalities and processes outside the formal develop
in order to meet these requirements. Embodying varying degrees of
power and exclusion, these informal networks and attendant modali-
ties manoeuvre, negotiate and protect spaces of opportunity through
complex processes of alliance-making and deal-breaking (Watson, 2009a).
While representing structural constraints perpetuated by sociopolitical
institutions, these informal practices are also representative of agency that
leverages embedded knowledge systems and practices (Ahlers et al., 2014;
Bakker et al., 2008). This realm of knowledge and capacities embedded
within the lived space (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 362) of everyday interac-
tions, relations and practices directs the incremental, flexible, pragmatic,
transversal and rooted nature of these informal modes of space production
(Bhan, 2019). The fact that these informalities constitute the dominant
mode of service delivery in southern cities (Watson, 2009a, p. 2263)
highlights the need to conceptualize them as ‘multiple modernities’ (Roy,
2009a, p. 828) capable of ‘deepening the pot’ (Watson, 2014, p. 63) of
planning ideas and approaches.
8 A. K. MOHAN
The burgeoning body of Southern theory therefore anchors itself

within the ‘gap’ between displaced planning models and place-specific
urban realities. An acknowledgement of this fact is critical in enabling
a Southern retelling of urban trajectories. Towards this end, this schol-
arship encourages scholars and practitioners alike to think in terms of
intersections, interchangeability and in-betweenness in order to focus on
the frontiers that defy categorization. This process begins with the defini-
tion of where the Global South manifests itself. In answer to this question,
scholars emphasize the relational nature of the Global South: rather than
comprising of discrete territories coterminous with national or adminis-
trative boundaries, it represents overlapping territories and intertwined
histories (Miraftab & Kudva, 2015, p. 4). Across shared colonial histories
and trajectories of postcolonial development, the relationality of urban
experiences generated in diverse contexts constitutes both its validation
and its potential as an emerging epistemology. Within these contexts,
it emphasizes the existence of ‘process geographies’ that defy the neat
categorization of trait geographies—i.e. bounded regions with immutable
traits (Roy, 2009a, p. 822). These process geographies can be said to
develop at the interface between imposed models and specific histories,
ecologies and sociocultural systems.
Within these contexts, the arrival of modernity is not experienced
as something that replaces the ‘old’ or pre-existing world. Rather, it
juxtaposes different materialities in order to embrace tradition and moder-
nity—in turn, creating hybrid societies (McFarlane, 2008; Roy, 2009a;
Watson, 2009a, p. 2271). A ‘conflict of rationalities’ thus arises between
the governing rationality, driven by notions of modernisztion and tech-
nocratic control of urban environments, on one hand and the survival
rationality of everyday interactions, needs, practices and knowledge on
the other (Roy & Ong, 2011; Watson, 2003, p. 395). This conflict
of rationalities characterizes the contestations, adaptations, evasions and
hybridizations that constitute the process geographies of the Global
South.
Southern urban theory finds itself at a critical juncture. Enquiries into
the nature of Southern cities carry within them an explicit call for action:
‘it is not enough to understand how we got here but also answer the
question of where from here’ (Bhan et al., 2018, p. 1). If the episte-
mological relocation into the grounded modes of praxis reveals natures
of ‘deep differences’ (Watson, 2006, p. 33), ‘conflict[s] of rationalities’
(Watson, 2003, p. 395) and ‘shadow materialities’ (McFarlane, 2008,
p. 341), then the subsequent question we have to ask is: How can the
planning discipline respond to these specific natures? This will require
an ‘auto-construction’ of the planning field through a delineation of the
knowledge that should underlie it, the ethics and politics that should drive
it and the professional praxis and institutional mechanisms that should
characterize it (Bhan et al., 2018, p. 7). In the interest of generating
such profound, exciting and less-sectional approaches, scholars highlight
the importance of a carefully constructed comparative method—one that
allows for indirect and uncertain learning (McFarlane, 2010; Mabin,
2014, p. 31; Roy, 2009a). This auto-construction will require framing the
Global South through a paradoxical combination of generalizability and
specificity—i.e. the homogeneous and the heterogeneous South. While
generating theory anchored within place, it should allow the appropri-
ation, borrowing and remapping of these theories across places. While
producing authoritative knowledge that is fine-grained and nuanced, it
should exceed its empiricism by allowing theoretical generalization for
and from the South (Bhan, 2019; Roy, 2009a).
It is this ethos of mutual learning that directs the present volume and
validates its sectional orientation in discussing the homogeneous and the
heterogenous South.
1.3 The Simultaneously Homogeneous

and Heterogenous Southern City
The aim of conceptualizing the South as being simultaneously homo-
geneous and heterogenous is twofold. First, it is intended to trigger
mutual learning within contexts, with the heterogeneous natures of local-
ized forms of knowledge, praxis and materialities coalescing to generate
frameworks, approaches and models that can inform urban planning at
scale. Second, it should trigger a mutual learning across contexts, with
the homogeneous urban experiences across diverse contexts being gath-
ered to ‘speak’ to each other, even while it is their intrinsic heterogeneity
that is acknowledged and positioned as central to theory generation.
1.3.1 The Homogeneous South: Emerging Planning Territories

The homogeneous is anchored in the represented, normative and insti-
tutional space of urban production. The four chapters in Part One of
this book, ‘The Homogeneous South: Emerging Planning Territories’,
10 A. K. MOHAN
draw out the homogeneity along two dimensions: first, the shared colonial
history and postcolonial development narratives that have created similar
yet distinct layering, evolution and contestations among socio-spatial
orders; second, the homogenization processes of boundary-making, cate-
gorization and control that were embedded through these historic trajec-
tories and continue to dominate the planning practices of the state. In
the contemporary context, these have interacted with processes of neolib-
eralization and globalization to consolidate existing and generate new
modalities of techno-managerialism.
Across Latin America, Asia and Africa, urban trajectories have been
marked by the overlaying of colonial forms, systems and processes on
existing socio-spatial orders, followed by postcolonial interventions of
nation-building. Historically, socio-spatial orders in these places have
embodied (and continue to embody) an intimate and evolved under-
standing of ecological relations: everyday practices, livelihoods and infras-
tructure were premised on these relations and configured accordingly.
The arrival of colonial systems and their ideologies gradually replaced,
disrupted and even marginalized these historically evolved traditional
practices. The importing, imposition and mimicking of Euro–American
urban aesthetics, planning legislation and land-tenure arrangements often
veiled insidious aims of repressing the cultural life of the colonized people
while creating a social divide between native, affluent and common masses
(Tom et al., 2019, p. 8). The decline of colonialism post-World War II,
and the rise of sovereign states across Africa and Asia, marked the possi-
bility of creating a home-grown script of urbanism and modernity. Yet,
the newly formed governments, tasked with carving out a new identity
for their nations while also addressing housing, services and employment
requirements, accepted, reinforced and entrenched colonial spatial plans
and land-management tools—sometimes in even more rigid form than
colonial governments (Njoh, 2003, p. 2). Urban planning and gover-
nance became oriented around land-use control based on static master
plans developed through bureaucratic, top-down processes and driven by
visions of the ‘good city’ where ‘proper citizens’ live in ‘proper communi-
ties’ (Watson, 2003, 2009a, p. 2268). The importing and entrenchment
of static planning models that continue to marginalize embedded socio-
spatial orders and knowledge systems in Southern cities is, therefore,
neither unique nor accidental.
It was these historical trajectories that led to homogenizing gover-
nance and regulatory mechanisms and exercises of boundary-making,
categorization and control, instituted largely to direct urban growth. The

rigidity of these homogenizing practices is linked to the state’s imper-
ative of consolidating, maintaining and negotiating social hierarchies of
class, caste, race and ethnicity (Roy, 2012, p. 2). In the last quarter of
the twentieth century, the neoliberal turn and the retreat of the welfare
state led to the orientation of all spheres, planning and urban governance
included, towards economic and market rationality. The politics of accu-
mulation and dispossession underlying these homogenizing practices has
led to the development of urban forms, materialities and modalities that
embody the contrast between the survivalist rationality of inhabitants and
the governing rationality of planning practices. With urban reality rarely
conforming to homogeneous categories, scholars underscore that it is
the boundary-making of the state that requires explanation rather than
the existence of territories that defy such categorization (Roy, 2009b;
Yiftachel, 1998). The four chapters constituting Part One of this volume
and discussed in the rest of this section speak predominantly to this
homogenization while simultaneously foregrounding heterogeneity as a
lens of theoretical enquiry. They draw out the two interrelated dimen-
sions explained above—the relationality of urban experiences resulting
from transnational processes and the entrenched, homogenizing practices
of the state.
The chapters analyse institutionalized urban planning and governance
praxis in Indian and Chinese contexts while drawing on similarities across
other Southern cities. The first chapter, by Sarani Khatua, ‘Produc-
tion of Suburban Space through Metropolitan Governance in a Global
South City Region’, investigates the suburban peripheries of metropolitan
Kolkata as one of the ‘cities within the city’. It evidences how the
boundary-making processes of the state integrate and segregate urban
space for extractive or welfare agendas, and are often mediated by
underlying political motivations. While being only tangentially linked to
quality-of-life improvements for inhabitants, this boundary-making exer-
cise results in the disruption, displacement and determination of socio-
spatial identities. Responding to the disjunction between socio-spatial
outcomes and planning praxis, Khatua argues for the need to imbue
a non-hierarchical understanding of cities that takes into account ‘all
peripheries’ and reflects the processualism, precariousness and potentiality
of urban forms such as the peri-urban.
While Khatua discusses homogenizing processes within the urban, the
second chapter, by Banashree Banerjee, ‘Planning for the Urban Mosaic
12 A. K. MOHAN
of a Mega-city: the Case of Urban Villages in Delhi’ draws them out at

the urban–rural edge. It explores the socio-spatial form of urban villages
(in Delhi) as an intricate juxtaposition of diverse urban experiences.
The chapter explores ways in which this intricacy can be responded to
through formal planning praxis. Banerjee points out how over the years,
as Delhi grew, urban planning and governance initiatives tried to resolve
the contestations emanating from the city gradually engulfing villages, and
embedded practices through alternating reformist and practical agendas.
The resulting overlap of regulatory systems allows these spaces to develop
a quality of ‘suspended animation’ and a certain ‘immunity from urban
governance’ which is leveraged in relation to capital and labour flows
to develop a heterogenous intermix of livelihoods, lifestyles and spatial
forms. The chapter problematizes the inadequacies of planning praxis in
hybrid contexts such as these as one of ‘language’. Even as the state and
its institutions recognize the heterogeneous nature of urban reality, their
inability to respond adequately stems from the formally defined organi-
zational and institutional frameworks—the homogenizing categories and
tools—that, by design, do not allow for an acknowledgement of the
diverse specificities on the ground.
The third chapter, by Aashish Xaxa, ‘Reimagining Urban Development
in a Tribal Region: Readings on a Fifth Schedule Area of India’, expands
on the understanding of urban villages in the rapidly urbanizing yet a
relatively small city of Ranchi. It evidences how urban governance and
planning processes were a result of, and benefited from, the marginal-
ization of the original tribal inhabitants and their habitats—the urban
villages—engulfed by the city. Expanding on the homogenizing practices
of the state, Xaxa shows how it functions not only through boundary-
making but also through the unmaking of protective boundaries. The
state-led pursuit of industrial and urban development has systematically
subverted protective legal provisions to dispossess the original tribal
inhabitants of their land and livelihoods. By foregrounding the question
of ‘development for whom?’, the chapter argues for an emulative planning
praxis as an alternative to the current extractive model. To this end, the
author foregrounds traditional knowledge systems and everyday practices
of tribal populations that balance social needs with ecological imperatives
as conduits towards envisioning alternate planning models.
The final chapter in Part One, by Zhi Liu and Peiming Wang,
‘Urban-planning Practices in China: Struggling Between Politics and
the Market’, analyses how planning praxis in Chinese cities is shaped
by tensions between national-government imperatives, market pursuits

and local interests. In contrast to Indian, Latin American and African
examples—as well as the ‘Southeastern’ perspective from Israel seen in
Chapter 7—the Chinese context is atypical in that it carries no direct
imprints of colonial planning systems, yet typical in that the country’s
indigenously developed planning systems are tangentially informed by
Western models. The chapter adds a distinct caveat to the understanding
of homogenizing practices by highlighting contestations within formal
planning and governance practices in order to foreground the incon-
sistency within these practices. Functioning within highly centralized
governance models, these tensions often render planning subsidiary to
economic growth. By drawing on the materialities of missing public
spaces, ‘copycat’ towns and urban villages, Liu and Wang argue prag-
matically for addressing local requirements and social justice through a
planning praxis that mediates between the imposition of state visions and
the precedence of market-oriented private interests.
1.3.2 The Heterogeneous South: Conflicting Rationalities

The heterogeneous is anchored in the empirical and experiential space of
urban production. This volume conceptualizes the heterogeneous South
along two dimensions: first, heterogeneity as a result of the interaction
between the homogenizing practices of the state and specific configura-
tions of land, infrastructure, economy and cultural systems; second, the
distinct knowledge systems, logics and modalities that characterize the
emerging urban forms of Southern urbanism.
While shared colonial histories and development narratives contribute
a degree of homogeneity to the urban experience of the South, their
intersections on different timelines and across distinct histories, ecolog-
ical conditions and sociocultural systems render them heterogeneous. This
heterogeneity manifests itself in the empirical or experiential space, which
is marked by hybridity, multiplicity and complexity. The fact that this
urban reality doesn’t conform to the homogeneous categories of the state
is often positioned as the crux of the urban problem. State-led planning
praxis, with its techno-managerial and modernist notions of ideal urban
forms and modalities, approaches this non-conforming heterogeneity with
a reformist agenda—seeking to either displace it or hide it from sight
(Watson, 2009b). The paradox in this reformist agenda relates to the
fact that these non-conforming forms and the inadequate materialities
14 A. K. MOHAN
(poverty, inequality, informality) that they embody are, in fact, conse-

quential to the homogenizing processes of the state. For instance, as a city
grows to engulf surrounding agrarian settlements with their embedded
or ‘traditional’ systems of land and livelihood configurations, a dense
intermixing, hybridization and juxtaposition of urban and rural develops
to create the socio-spatial form of urban villages. However, the binary
categorizations of urban–rural, traditional–modern and formal–informal
that are characteristic of formal planning and governance mechanisms are
unable to adequately grasp—and, by extension, intervene within—these
heterogenous urban forms (Kasarda & Crenshaw, 1991). This uncertainty
notwithstanding, inhabitants within these locales—driven by survivalist
and developmental imperatives—eke out spaces of opportunity and habi-
tation in a temporal, incremental and rooted manner (Bhan, 2019). The
multiple boundaries ‘drawn onto’ empirical space by institutional acts of
integration, segregation, neglect and erasure are therefore subverted, rein-
terpreted and contested through everyday acts of citizen agency, which
result in new boundaries that are ‘drawn by’ inhabitants. While these
boundaries ‘drawn onto’ abstract space by the state are marked by the
attachment of binary adjectives, the boundaries ‘drawn by’ inhabitants in
the lived space are marked by the enactment of juxtaposition. Together,
the iterative processes concomitantly create the heterogeneous realities of
the urban South.
These ‘drawn by’ boundaries are exemplified in the urban forms of
slums, squatter settlements, urban villages, peri-urban edges and suburban
settlements that exist embedded within, at the edges of and at the
intersections of homogeneous categories of the state. Until recently,
they were theorized as exceptional urban forms synonymous with the
tensions of over-urbanization, megalopolization and the urban primacy of
Southern urbanism. However, scholars highlight the need to look beyond
the tropes of exceptionality (stark poverty or heroic survival) and posi-
tion them as an alternate mode of production of space (Bhan, 2019;
Roy, 2012, p. 3; Watson, 2014). This approach requires foregrounding
the specific temporality and agency of these settlements, which engages
transversally with official logics of law, property and labour (Caldeira,
2017). As opposed to the formal production of space—which operates on
evidence-based policymaking, techno-rational reasoning and marketized
forms of praxis—this grounded production of space embraces uncer-
tainty; is driven by everyday concerns and pursuits; and anchors itself in
spatial, historical and sociopolitical specificities. Representing the domi-

nant mode of production of space in the Global South, scholars theorizing
the urban consider these socio-spatial signifiers as tutelary personages
(Watson, 2009a, p. 2263)—as a constellation of affordable, feasible and
pragmatic responses that build on the exigencies of the socio-spatial
inequalities and shortages of the contemporary Southern city. ‘Seeing
from the South’ will therefore require privileging not only the localized
knowledge, embedded wisdom and cultural specificities that characterize
these heterogeneous modes of production of space but also the dominant
forms of urban membership and politics that they engender.
The five chapters in this Part II of the book, exemplifying the
heterogeneity encountered in the Southern city, draw out the two interre-
lated dimensions explained above—the extrinsic creation of heterogeneity
through interaction with homogenizing practices and its intrinsic creation
leveraging embedded knowledge systems, logics and modalities. Its chap-
ters analyse the empirical specificities of urban experiences, politics and
space production across Latin America, Asia and Africa. The first chapter,
by Edwar Calderón, ‘Invisible Territories: the Visibility of an Urban
Crisis in Medellín’, considers the hypertrophy of settlements emerging
in response to ‘forced urbanization’ and the attendant dichotomy of
visibility–invisibility that is maintained as an exercise of power. With
urban growth increasingly driven by internally displaced migrants, the
new marginal territories that develop at the peripheries of cities confound
the homogeneous categories of the state, denying them territorial and
legal recognition. They are thereby assigned a quality of invisibility that
manifests itself as a ‘politics of apparition’. The author evidences the
ways in which not just state players but also inhabitants opportunisti-
cally wield this visibility–invisibility dynamic towards habitational, political
and economic imperatives. He thereby qualifies the demand for visibility
not as one of equality but as one of recognition, since ‘equality homog-
enizes but recognition diversifies’. This recognition, Calderón argues,
can be facilitated through the tool of participatory mapping, which can
potentially bridge between heterogeneous specificities and homogeneous
categorizations.
The second chapter by Oren Yiftachel and Nir Cohen, ‘Defen-
sive Urban Citizenship: AView from Southeastern Tel Aviv’, considers
the making of urban identities through ‘defensive urban citizenship’,
expanding on the understanding of ‘invisible territories’ elucidated by
Calderón. Tracing the neoliberal and xenophobic planning policies
16 A. K. MOHAN
behind property-led urban regeneration, attracting creative residents and

establishing flagship cultural institutions, Yiftachel and Cohen highlight
the emergence of territories suspended in a ‘condition of displaceability’.
By analysing one such neighbourhood and its three dominant communi-
ties, their chapter highlights how ‘defensive urban citizenship’ develops as
inhabitants perceive, mobilize and react to threats. Diverse communities
coalesce under a new identity that practices citizenship through mobi-
lization against hegemonically defined spaces and policies. By evidencing
the ways in which this mobilization is not just reactionary but accrues
protective and contributive dimensions over time, the authors argue for
using this new and persistent form of urban membership as a lens through
which to understand the Southern city.
The third chapter, by Xavier Méndez Abad, Hans Leinfelder and Kris
Scheerlinck, ‘Everyday Practices and Public Space (Re-)appropriation in
El Cisne Dos, Guayaquil’, draws on upgrading projects in informal or
self-developed neighbourhoods in order to contrast, compare and analyse
official mechanisms of space production alongside spatial self-production,
everyday rhythms and local practical knowledge. Their chapter expands on
the understanding of emergent and insurgent urban identities discussed
by Yiftachel and Cohen in order to show the distinct forms of spatial
production and appropriation that they engender. It shows how the
recognition of rights, sociocultural specificities and diverse logics of spatial
production in historically neglected areas has led to a new direction in
policy, positioning in situ upgrading as an accepted model. By focusing on
public-space renovation and provisioning within these projects, it argues
that the continued reliance on standard spatial models that engage in a
limited manner with everyday local dynamics results in physical deter-
minism and the perpetuation of dominating socio-spatial structures. In
contrast, it draws out the ‘ordinary’ re-appropriation of space through
gradual, mundane and particular concern-based actions of inhabitants in
pursuit of livelihoods, recreation, socialization and spatial personalization.
By showing how this grounded spatial production subverts the institu-
tionalized conception of space, the chapter highlights the need to move
beyond approaches that aim at standardized aesthetics and spatial prod-
ucts towards perspectives anchored in everyday appropriations, meanings
and practices.
The fourth chapter, by Guillermo Delgado, Situated Modernities:
Socio-Spatial Co-production in Namibia’, analyses the emerging modes
of co-produced spatial production in Namibia to argue that these repre-

sent situated modernities. It builds on the other chapters in this section by
positioning bottom-up spatial production as an alternative to the homo-
geneous models of the state. Namibia’s experimentation in the 1990s with
a new form of bottom-up spatial production emerged through grassroots
mobilization for land and housing. While initially showcasing welfare-
based relations, over the years it consolidated into a dominant form
of spatial production that presented new forms of stakeholder relations
facilitated through financial allocations towards an urban transforma-
tion process. By comparing bottom-up and top-down spatial production
along engagement modalities, temporality and costs, the chapter positions
grounded spatial production as a situated modernity that obtains legiti-
macy through presence, orients itself on collective demands and leverages
knowledge of urban development made accessible and transformable at
lower levels. It further emphasizes the importance of acknowledging,
integrating and adopting these situated modernities within mainstream
planning processes.
The final chapter in this section, by Taibat Lawanson, ‘Planning and
Pentecostalism in the Spatial (Re-)configuration of Lagos’, considers
spatial production by religious organizations in Lagos and their impact
on the morphology and land-use configurations of the city. The author
highlights the ways in which this spatial production is often in disre-
gard, subversion and contestation of planning regulations. It expands
on the understanding of bottom-up spatial production elucidated in the
previous chapters to caution against a romantic conception of the much-
touted emancipatory effects of bottom-up practices. The author traces
space production through religious activities in Lagos to show how these
can transform into a homogenizing force. Amidst state failures, Lawanson
highlights religion and religious institutions as propagators of alternate
urban visions that wield significant impact on patterns of land appro-
priation, governance and management. Exploiting yet contradicting the
state’s perception of religion as a benign presence, infrastructural and
relational transformations such as new towns, religious gentrification and
interim spaces enacted by religious institutions pass by undetected. By
showing how space production by religious institutions has become as
aggressive, dictatorial and benevolent as state-led practices, the chapter
highlights the importance of visibilizing the agency and agendas under-
lying grounded modes of spatial production.
18 A. K. MOHAN
1.4 Discussion
The arguments and provocations across this volume’s grounded explo-
rations into the relational socio-spatial geographies of Asia, Africa and
Latin American point to the anchoring within empirical specificities of
the Global South as a pathway rather than a preclusion towards mutual
learning. The implicit question contained within the individual chapters
and the volume as a whole is how the diversity of space production within
contexts, on the one hand, and the specificities and similarities in urban
experiences across contexts, on the other, can be brought together in a
mutual learning process that helps progress towards an integrated and
grounded field of urban praxis and theorization. It is with this intent that
the volume conceptualizes the South as a simultaneously homogeneous
and heterogeneous place. This conceptualization allows the drawing out
of (1) the uniqueness of the intrinsic imperatives, logics and modalities
that mark these geographies; and (2) the similarities, simultaneity and
interactions that bind them. The remainder of this discussion disquali-
fies the binary conceptualization of homogeneous and heterogeneous to
unpack the interlinkages within and between these along dimensions of
power, intention and modalities.
1.4.1 The Homogeneous South

Power: The chapter by Liu and Wang draws on the Chinese experi-
ence in order to qualify the power of the state’s homogenizing practices.
They argue that the homogeneous realm of space production, far from
operating as a cohesive force, is rife with contestations within itself. The
translation of the boundaries that it draws onto empirical space is marked
by multiple adaptations, contestations and subversions. Banerjee’s anal-
ysis of the urban villages of Delhi evidences this argument: mandated
master-planning efforts over the years have resulted in an overlapping of
urban regulatory guidelines with traditional systems of land ownership
and tenure that creates a state of suspended animation in these socio-
spatial forms. Inhabitants in these villages leverage this ambiguous state
in order to create a new identity for themselves. They develop mecha-
nisms that tap into market opportunities through tools such as quasi-legal
land transfers in order to contribute to spaces that provide cheap rental
units, supply labour and support discrepant urban activities. The bound-
aries drawn onto space by the state are thereby subverted into boundaries
drawn by the agency of the inhabitants in response to their social, polit-

ical, cultural and economic imperatives. Xaxa correlates this agency to a
realm of embedded knowledge systems anchored in the everyday practices
of tribal communities. His chapter points to an intimate understanding of
ecological orders that tribal communities embody and that can potentially
be leveraged to respond to the emerging imperatives of sustainability and
equitability.
Modalities: The chapters highlight how the entrenched modalities of
homogenizing practices limit their ability to intervene in heterogeneous
realities. Often, while the state recognizes the empirical heterogeneity
abounding its homogeneous categories, its continued reliance on tools
and models embodying technocratic, binary and hierarchical categoriza-
tions precludes it from intervening in a meaningful, appropriate and
effective manner. Banerjee shows how the Delhi masterplan—while recog-
nizing the temporal, multi-use nature of urban villages—continues to
employ instruments of static planning frameworks such as land-use zoning
and development codes to implement change. Further, the plan continues
to orient itself on a simplistic, reformist agenda with an assumption that
the subsuming of these settlements into the formal order will implicitly
trigger development. Such an approach negates the contribution of these
grounded modes of space production in taking on state responsibilities of
housing, services and employment provision arguably in more affordable
and sustainable manners. The imperative, therefore, is to move beyond
the language of ‘drawing onto’ and adopt and acknowledge the language
of ‘drawing by’—i.e. the rationalities, modalities and processes critical to
reshape planning praxis and regulatory models should be derived from
grounded modes of spatial production.
Intention: The chapters draw out the intention that these institu-
tionalized praxes conceal as opposed to the rationality that they project.
The orthodoxy of modernistic and technocratic planning and governance
models has led to state action that is largely oriented towards reforming,
upgrading and integrating un-tameable forms into controllable models
and orders. Be it in the boundary-making processes of suburban towns
in Kolkata (as highlighted by Khatua) or of the urban villages in Delhi
and Ranchi (as highlighted by Banerjee and Xaxa), the state projects
agendas of development or reformation in order to validate the catego-
rization and control that it draws onto space. All three authors highlight
the internal contradictions in these agendas. While purportedly framed
as ‘developmental’, these agendas often mask the extractive, accumulative
20 A. K. MOHAN
and political objectives of various state–society–market stakeholders. Crit-

ically, the binaries of urban–rural, traditional–modern, formal–informal
and planned–unplanned underlying state action and agendas are, in effect,
difficult to defend against an overwhelming body of evidence of the
diverse on-the-ground materialities and modalities that occur as intricately
juxtaposed in context.
1.4.2 The Heterogeneous South

The subsequent five chapters discuss the occurrence of heterogeneous
urban realities despite, and because of, the homogenizing practices of the
state as well as the specific logic, modalities and complexities that they
embody.
Power: The chapters foreground the power and agency embodied
in grounded modes of spatial production, evidenced by their ability to
remake not just physical but also social space. While Calderón terms
this physical remaking a hypertrophy of settlements that develops in
relation to processes of rapid urbanization, migration and neoliberaliza-
tion, Yitachel and Cohen link it to transit neighbourhoods marked by
conditions of displaceability, with xenophobic and gentrifying tendencies
gaining prominence in state agendas. Both the chapters then highlight
the remaking of urban relations and identities triggered within these new
territories. Calderón points to a subversive modality of urban member-
ship termed as ‘politics of apparition’, with dynamics of visibility and
invisibility being opportunistically wielded by state and society alike while
negotiating market processes, political visions and survivalist imperatives.
Yiftachel and Cohen point to a reactionary modality of urban politics
termed ‘defensive urban citizenship’, wherein diverse identities amidst
conditions of displaceability mobilize against the perception of larger or
common threats to develop new identities that derive from a rejection
of hegemonies. While initially occupying a reactionary or contrarian posi-
tion, the authors point to the flexible nature of these identities that allows
them to contribute to processes of space production. Abad et al. high-
light these contributions at the neighbourhood scale, where residents
re-appropriate public space through everyday practices. Delgado high-
lights similar re-appropriation at the city scale while discussing grassroots
movements around land and housing. In all five contexts—Medellín; Tel
Aviv; El Cisne Dos, Guayaquil; Lagos; and cities across Namibia—the
authors trace the subversion of the states’ hegemonic visions, relations and
politics. The remaking of urban territories thus contributes incrementally

to an alternative realm of urban visions, relations and politics.
Modalities: The chapters highlight the unique modalities leveraged by
these grounded modes of production of space to contrast and meet official
mechanisms of standardized, static and control-based space produc-
tion. For example, in considering public-space upgrading projects in
the informal settlements of El Cisne Dos, Abad et al. draw out the
ways in which the state’s aim of neighbourhood improvement reaches
only limited fruition as it continues to rely on physically determinist
and aestheticized models that engage minimally with local dynamics,
practices and perception. In contrast, the authors examine the everyday
re-appropriation of public space in order to highlight its alignment with
community perceptions, priorities and relational dynamics. This grounded
spatial production is the cumulative product of distributed, particular
concern-based, incremental actions that flexibly adopt, reject and subvert
institutionalized conceptions of space. Delgado scales up this analysis
to the city level by contrasting grassroots land and housing movements
with state-led planning praxis. He highlights how these grounded modes
of spatial production often emanate from state incapacities in provi-
sioning citizen and city needs. While initially located outside of legal
domains, such space production gains legitimacy and success by orienting
problem framing, attendant resource mobilization and interventions at
the community level. Stakeholder relations between inhabitants, civil
society, universities, private players and the state are configured such that
knowledge of territorial transformation is acknowledged to reside at the
level of lived experience and is made accessible and transformable from the
ground up through tools like community-led data collection and partici-
patory mapping. These grounded modes of spatial production represent a
situated modernity that leverages contexts of unpredictability, complexity
and disparity and draws on embedded knowledge and everyday experi-
ences to produce socio-spatial outcomes that contrast with, and often
mitigate, inadequacies in state-led planning praxis.
Intention: Finally, the chapters caution against romantic conceptual-
izations of the intention of grounded spatial production. Emancipatory
impacts are not a given in either bottom-up or top-down spatial produc-
tion. Through an analysis of grounded spatial production by religious
organizations in Lagos, Lawanson evidences new forms of parochial prac-
tice that are just as aggressive, dictatorial and benevolent as state-led
22 A. K. MOHAN
praxis—especially when their incremental acquisition of power goes unde-

tected by techno-rational models of the state. Arguably, bottom-up and
top-down spatial production constitute complementary realms, show-
casing interlinkages that can be potentially leveraged towards triggering
co-production.
To conclude on this discussion, the trajectories of theoretical enquiry
from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous and vice versa intersect
to create a narrative that draws out the interlinkages between the two.
Homogenizing practices of the state position socio-spatial forms such as
suburban towns (Khatua), urban villages (Banashree; Xaxa) and informal
settlements (Calderón; Abad et al.) along different degrees of visibility
corresponding to its binary and hierarchical categorizations. However,
the power hierarchies reflected in this disjunctive positioning result in
the development of dynamics of ‘suspended animation’ (Banerjee) or
‘conditions of displaceability’ (Yiftachel and Cohen). These dynamics are
wielded by the agency of inhabitants to create new modalities of urban
membership and politics. These can be (a) subversive, such as the ‘politics
of apparition’ as referred to by Calderón while discussing Medellín; (b)
reactionary, such as the ‘defensive urban citizenship’ framed by Yiftachel
and Cohen; or (c) contributive, as evidenced by Abad et. al. through
the re-appropriation of public space at the neighbourhood level and by
Delgado at the city scale.
On one hand, the progression of this grounded spatial production can
morph into hegemonies—as Lawanson cautions through the case of reli-
gious organizations in Lagos. On the other, the progression of top-down
spatial production can be marked by internal contestations, as Liu and
Wang draw out in the case of Chinese planning praxis. Overall, the power
of homogeneous modes of spatial production is not totalizing but neither
is the power of heterogeneous modes of spatial production marginal.
The rationality of homogeneous space production often masks sociopolit-
ical intentions while the emancipatory intention of heterogeneous modes
of spatial production is not a given. Complementary modalities underly
both modes of production, with homogeneous modes of production
embodying control, order and predictability and heterogeneous modes
of production embodying incrementality, flexibility and uncertainty. It is
within these interlinkages in power, intention and modalities that the
volume positions a call for mutual learning towards grounded theo-
rizing. It seeks to leverage this ‘in-betweenness’ of homogeneous and
heterogeneous modes of space production for a recursive, aggregated and
disaggregated process of mutual learning within and across contexts.
1.5 Conclusion
The present volume aligns itself with the need for pragmatism and
ambition in Southern urban theory. Its anchoring within the empirical
specificities of Southern urbanisms is oriented towards an exercise of
theory-building that presents both actions for context-specific implemen-
tation and abstractions for context-spanning derivations. It is to this end
that the pathway of mutual learning between the similarities and speci-
ficities of Southern contexts mediates the long-perpetuated gap between
theory and praxis. This mutual learning should operate at two levels:
across and within contexts.
Across contexts, the relationality of urban trajectories due to transna-
tional processes of colonial rule, postcolonial development and marginal-
ization of embedded socio-spatial orders should facilitate framing of
their urban materialities, experiences and forms both as recurring homo-
geneities and heterogeneous specificities. The volume attempts such a
framing when it draws out the socio-spatial specificities of the diverse
geographies of Latin America, Asia and Africa and gathers them to
speak amongst themselves. For instance, urban villages of India and
China emerge as symptomatic manifestations of the institutionalized bina-
ries between urban–rural and traditional–modern. Similarly, the defensive
urban citizenship emerging in the transit neighbourhoods of Israel can be
read as an evolution or variation of the politics of apparition emerging
in the invisible territories of Medellín, Colombia. The shared histories of
the diverse geographies of the Global South that intersect across different
timelines and different socio-spatial configurations allow relatable yet
varying urban experiences that can be leveraged for fluid comparisons,
distilling, displacing and directing perspectives that can potentially trigger
urban innovation.
Within contexts, the potential for mutual learning is located at the
interlinkage points between homogeneous and heterogeneous modes of
space production. While both realms involve distinct logics, modalities
and temporalities, it is at the interlinkages between them that the poten-
tial for approaching, unpacking and leveraging the complexity, hybridity
and multiplicity of Southern urbanisms lie. Finally, the volume positions
mutual learning between the homogeneous and heterogeneous modes of
space production along three processes.
First, through a process of recognition that foregrounds a non-
hierarchical processual understanding of space production (Khatua).
24 A. K. MOHAN
Evidence of multiple peripheries (Khatua) or overlapping mosaics

(Banerjee) or hypertrophy of settlements (Calderón) negates the institu-
tionalized conceptualization of the urban as a collection of discrete, static
and controllable categories. The homogenizing practices of the state that
aim to integrate, segregate, erase or neglect heterogeneous specificities
interact with the agency of inhabitants acting in response to survivalist and
developmental imperatives and adapting, rejecting or subverting bound-
aries ‘drawn onto’ space into boundaries ‘drawn by’. Acknowledgement of
how urban identities, materialities and relationships are in fact a product
of the overlapping, embeddedness and intersections between boundaries
‘drawn onto’ and boundaries ‘drawn by’ provides an opportunity to
dismantle binaries and the hierarchical positioning of homogeneous and
heterogenous modes of space production.
Second, proceeding from such an acknowledgement requires a process
of elicitation of grounded vocabularies. That the homogeneous models
that continue to use modalities of ‘drawing onto’ cannot be relied upon
is clear from Banerjee’s analysis of Delhi’s master-planning approach
towards urban villages and Abad et al.’s analysis of in situ upgrading
projects in El Cisne Dos. Instead, territorial transformation embedded
in lived experience and everyday practices requires elicitation—as does
its directionality towards institutionalized modes of spatial production.
To the former situation, both Calderón and Lawanson emphasize the
visibilizing rather than the subsuming of the agency, logics and modal-
ities of grounded spatial production. To the latter, assistive tools such as
participatory mapping and community-initiated household enumerations
emerge as critical, as highlighted by both Calderón and Delgado.
Third, the elicitation of these grounded vocabularies will have to be
mobilized towards urban transformation through a recursive process of
aggregation and disaggregation. The argument here is that responding to
Southern urbanisms cannot be an either-or choice between homogeneous
and heterogeneous spatial production. On one hand, there is a need
for an aggregation of grounded vocabularies anchored in heterogeneous
specificities towards informing institutionalized modes of spatial produc-
tion. On the other, a disaggregation of institutionalized modes of spatial
production in order to support, direct and scale heterogeneous modes
of spatial production in alignment with the identified socio-ecological
goals of communities is required. The need for such a recursive direction-
ality is highlighted by Lawanson’s evidence on how it is the disjunction
between the homogeneous and heterogeneous modes of production
rather than their intrinsic qualities that results in negative impacts such
as the entrenchment of socio-spatial inequalities.
In responding to the enigma of the Global South as a project,
provocation and place, this volume conceptualizes it as a relational and
processual geography of simultaneous homogeneity and heterogeneity.
This conceptualization is anchored in the volume’s understanding that
the ‘singular script’ of the South is one written in contraries and simul-
taneity. Its answers, therefore, are contained in its ‘in-betweenness’, in the
spaces between its similarities and specificities—i.e. its homogeneities and
heterogeneities. While the chapters in Part I trace this in-betweenness
from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous realms of space produc-
tion, those in Part II trace it from the latter to former. In doing so,
they interpret the call for theory ‘from the South’ as one that, while
being placed within the empirical specificities of contexts, can be displaced
towards generalizability across contexts. The chapters (Two–Ten), while
not presenting totalizing theories or models, articulate clues and frag-
ments that, while being assembled to answer the question of the Global
South, are capable of reconstructing the question itself.
In contrast, the conclusion (Chapter 11), as a way forward, puts
forth arguments for a transformative urban development process that
starts from within. The authors propose a grammarian alternative and an
autopoietic communication model of space production that relies on an
interaction between natural order and social order. They identify processes
of insurgent citizenship, urban dialectics and generative designs, which
could be used to shape this autopoietic process. Overall, the volume and
its chapters are ‘works in progress’ towards theorizing urban development
from the Global South. In doing so, they align, respond to and embody
the contrarian, ephemeral and intricate nature of Southern urbanisms
themselves.
Acknowledgements The author acknowledges the contribution of Sneha Maria

Varghese in sifting through and collating the background literature while also
being an eager ‘ear’ in formulating the arguments presented in this chapter.
26 A. K. MOHAN
References
Ahlers, R., Cleaver, F., Rusca, M., & Schwartz, K. (2014). Informal space in the
urban waterscape: Disaggregation and co-production of water services. Water
Alternatives, 7 (1), 1–14.
Appadurai, A. (2001). Deep democracy: Urban governmentality and the horizon
of politics. Environment and Urbanization, 13(2), 23–43.
Bakker, K., Kooy, M., Shofiani, N. E., & Martijn, E. (2008). Governance
Failure: Rethinking the institutional dimensions of urban water supply to poor
households. World Development, 36(10), 1891–1915.
Bhan, G. (2019). Notes on a Southern urban practice. Environment and
Urbanization, 31(2), 639–654.
Bhan, G., Srinivas, S., & Watson, V. (2018). The Routledge companion to
planning in the global south. Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. (2002). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste.
Routledge.
Caldeira, T. P. (2017). Peripheral urbanization: Autoconstruction, transversal
logics, and politics in cities of the global south. Environment and Planning
D: Society and Space, 35(1), 3–20.
Galland, D., & Elinbaum, P. (2018). A ‘Field’ under construction: The state
of planning in Latin America and the southern turn in planning. disP—The
Planning Review, 54(1), 18–24.
Kasarda, J. D., & Crenshaw, E. M. (1991). Third world urbanization: Dimen-
sions, theories, and determinants. Annual Review of Sociology, 17 (1), 467–
501.
Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Blackwell.
Mabin, A. (2014). Grounding southern city theory in time and place. In S.
Parnell & S. Oldfield (Eds.), The Routledge handbook on cities of the global
south (pp. 21–36). Routledge.
Mahadevia, D., & Joshi, R. (2009). Subversive urban development in India:
Implications on planning education. Working Paper—1, Centre for Urban
Equity, CEPT University, Ahmedabad.
McFarlane, C. (2008). Urban shadows: Materiality, the ‘southern city’ and urban
theory. Geography Compass, 2(2), 340–358.
McFarlane, C. (2010). The comparative city: Knowledge, learning, urbanism.
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 34(4), 725–742.
Miraftab, F., & Kudva, N. (2015). Cities of the global south reader. Routledge.
Mohan, A. K., Parthasarathy, A., Mahajan, P., & Pellissery, S. (2020). Plurality of
voices: Emerging pathways towards planning southern cities. Institute of Public
Policy, National Law Institute of India University.
Nandy, A. (1998). The secret politics of our desires: Innocence. Zed Books.
Njoh, A. (2003). Planning in contemporary Africa: The state, town planning and
society in Cameroon. Ashgate
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
"None of that, now," said the man who had spoken before. He
caught her by the wrists, and she twisted, shrieking, in his arms,
biting and struggling to get free.
"Think, think," said the man with the treacly voice. "It's getting on to
morning. It'll be light in an hour or two. The police may be here any
minute."
"The police!" She seemed to control herself by a violent effort. "Yes,
yes, you are right. We must not imperil the safety of all for the sake
of one man. He himself would not wish it. That is so. We will put this
carrion in the cellar where it cannot harm us, and depart, every one
to his own place, while there is time."
"And the other prisoner?"
"He? Poor fool—he can do no harm. He knows nothing. Let him go,"
she answered contemptuously.
In a few minutes' time Wimsey found himself bundled
unceremoniously into the depths of the cellar. He was a little
puzzled. That they should refuse to let him go, even at the price of
Number One's life, he could understand. He had taken the risk with
his eyes open. But that they should leave him as a witness against
them seemed incredible.
The men who had taken him down strapped his ankles together and
departed, switching the lights out as they went.
"Hi! Kamerad!" said Wimsey. "It's a bit lonely sitting here. You might
leave the light on."
"It's all right, my friend," was the reply. "You will not be in the dark
long. They have set the time-fuse."
The other man laughed with rich enjoyment, and they went out
together. So that was it. He was to be blown up with the house. In
that case the President would certainly be dead before he was
extricated. This worried Wimsey; he would rather have been able to
bring the big crook to justice. After all, Scotland Yard had been
waiting six years to break up this gang.
He waited, straining his ears. It seemed to him that he heard
footsteps over his head. The gang had all crept out by this time....
There was certainly a creak. The trap-door had opened; he felt,
rather than heard, somebody creeping into the cellar.
"Hush!" said a voice in his ear. Soft hands passed over his face, and
went fumbling about his body. There came the cold touch of steel on
his wrists. The ropes slackened and dropped off. A key clicked in the
handcuffs. The strap about his ankles was unbuckled.
"Quick! quick! they have set the time-switch. The house is mined.
Follow me as fast as you can. I stole back—I said I had left my
jewellery. It was true. I left it on purpose. He must be saved—only
you can do it. Make haste!"
Wimsey, staggering with pain, as the blood rushed back into his
bound and numbed arms, crawled after her into the room above. A
moment, and she had flung back the shutters and thrown the window
open.
"Now go! Release him! You promise?"
"I promise. And I warn you, madame, that this house is surrounded.
When my safe-door closed it gave a signal which sent my servant to
Scotland Yard. Your friends are all taken——"
"Ah! But you go—never mind me—quick! The time is almost up."
"Come away from this!"
He caught her by the arm, and they went running and stumbling
across the little garden. An electric torch shone suddenly in the
bushes.
"That you, Parker?" cried Wimsey. "Get your fellows away. Quick!
the house is going up in a minute."
The garden seemed suddenly full of shouting, hurrying men.
Wimsey, floundering in the darkness, was brought up violently
against the wall. He made a leap at the coping, caught it, and
hoisted himself up. His hands groped for the woman; he swung her
up beside him. They jumped; everyone was jumping; the woman
caught her foot and fell with a gasping cry. Wimsey tried to stop
himself, tripped over a stone, and came down headlong. Then, with
a flash and a roar, the night went up in fire.
Wimsey picked himself painfully out from among the débris of the
garden wall. A faint moaning near him proclaimed that his
companion was still alive. A lantern was turned suddenly upon them.
"Here you are!" said a cheerful voice. "Are you all right, old thing?
Good lord! what a hairy monster!"
"All right," said Wimsey. "Only a bit winded. Is the lady safe? H'm—
arm broken, apparently—otherwise sound. What's happened?"
"About half a dozen of 'em got blown up; the rest we've bagged."
Wimsey became aware of a circle of dark forms in the wintry dawn.
"Good Lord, what a day! What a come-back for a public character!
You old stinker—to let us go on for two years thinking you were
dead! I bought a bit of black for an arm-band. I did, really. Did
anybody know, besides Bunter?"
"Only my mother and sister. I put it in a secret trust—you know, the
thing you send to executors and people. We shall have an awful time
with the lawyers, I'm afraid, proving I'm me. Hullo! Is that friend
Sugg?"
"Yes, my lord," said Inspector Sugg, grinning and nearly weeping
with excitement. "Damned glad to see your lordship again. Fine
piece of work, your lordship. They're all wanting to shake hands with
you, sir."
"Oh, Lord! I wish I could get washed and shaved first. Awfully glad to
see you all again, after two years' exile in Lambeth. Been a good
little show, hasn't it?"
"Is he safe?"
Wimsey started at the agonised cry.
"Good Lord!" he cried. "I forgot the gentleman in the safe. Here, fetch
a car, quickly. I've got the great big top Moriarty of the whole bunch
quietly asphyxiating at home. Here—hop in, and put the lady in too. I
promised we'd get back and save him—though" (he finished the
sentence in Parker's ear) "there may be murder charges too, and I
wouldn't give much for his chance at the Old Bailey. Whack her up.
He can't last much longer shut up there. He's the bloke you've been
wanting, the man at the back of the Morrison case and the Hope-
Wilmington case, and hundreds of others."
The cold morning had turned the streets grey when they drew up
before the door of the house in Lambeth. Wimsey took the woman
by the arm and helped her out. The mask was off now, and showed
her face, haggard and desperate, and white with fear and pain.
"Russian, eh?" whispered Parker in Wimsey's ear.
"Something of the sort. Damn! the front door's blown shut, and the
blighter's got the key with him in the safe. Hop through the window,
will you?"
Parker bundled obligingly in, and in a few seconds threw open the
door to them. The house seemed very still. Wimsey led the way to
the back room, where the strong-room stood. The outer door and the
second door stood propped open with chairs. The inner door faced
them like a blank green wall.
"Only hope he hasn't upset the adjustment with thumping at it,"
muttered Wimsey. The anxious hand on his arm clutched feverishly.
He pulled himself together, forcing his tone to one of cheerful
commonplace.
"Come on, old thing," he said, addressing himself conversationally to
the door. "Show us your paces. Open Sesame, confound you. Open
Sesame!"
The green door slid suddenly away into the wall. The woman sprang
forward and caught in her arms the humped and senseless thing that
rolled out from the safe. Its clothes were torn to ribbons, and its
battered hands dripped blood.
"It's all right," said Wimsey, "it's all right! He'll live—to stand his trial."
NOTES TO THE SOLUTION
I.1. VIRGO: The sign of the zodiac between LEO
(strength) and LIBRA (justice). Allusion to parable of
The Ten Virgins.
I.3. R.S.: Royal Society, whose "fellows" are addicted
to studies usually considered dry-as-dust.
IV.3. TESTAMENT (or will); search is to be directed to
the Old Testament. Ref. to parable of New Cloth and
Old Garment.
XIV.3. HI:
"He would answer to Hi!

Or to any loud cry."
The Hunting of the Snark.
I.5. TRANS.: Abbreviation of Translation; ref. to

building of Babel.
XI.5. SCENT:
"Even the scent of roses

Is not what they supposes,
But more than mind discloses
And more then men believe."
G. K. Chesterton: The Song of Quoodle.
VI.7. ICTUS: Blow; add V (five) and you get VICTUS

(vanquished); the ictus is the stress in a foot of verse; if
the stress be misplaced the line goes lamely.
I.8. SPINOZA: He wrote on the properties of optical
glasses; also on metaphysics.
IV.13. THIRTY-ONE: Seven (months) out of the twelve
of the sun's course through the heavens have thirty-
one days.
XIV.13. ET: Conjunction. In astrology an aspect of the
heavenly bodies. That Cicero was the master of this
word indicates that it is a Latin one.
X.14. BEZOAR: The bezoar stone was supposed to be
a prophylactic against poison.
11.I. PLAUD: If you would laud, then plaud (var. of

applaud); Plaud-it also means "cheer."
10.II. ALIENA: As You Like It. II. 1. 130.
1.III. R.D.: "Refer to Drawer."
4.III. CANTICLES: The Magnificat and Nunc Dimittis
are known as the Canticles, but the Book of Canticles
(the Vulgate name for the Song of Songs, in which the
solution is found) occurs earlier in the Bible.
2.VI. EST: [Greek: 'on kai mê 'on] = est and non est—
the problem of being and not-being. Ref. Marlowe:
Doctor Faustus I. 1.
12.X. TOB.: Add IT to get Tobit; the tale of Tobit and
the Fish is in the Apocrypha (the book of hidden
things).
1.XI. MANES: "Un lion est une mâchoire et non pas
une crinière": Emile Faguet: Lit. du XVIIe siècle.
Manes: benevolent spirits of the dead.
1.XV. SAINT: Evidence of miraculous power is required
for canonisation.
THE SOLUTION OF THE CROSS-
WORD PUZZLE IN "UNCLE
MELEAGER'S WILL."
BOOKS BY DOROTHY L. SAYERS:
THE NINE TAILORS
HANGMAN'S HOLIDAY
WHOSE BODY?
HAVE HIS CARCASE
THE FIVE RED HERRINGS

STRONG POISON
LORD PETER VIEWS THE BODY
THE UNPLEASANTNESS AT THE BELLONA CLUB

THE DOCUMENTS IN THE CASE (In collaboration with Robert
Eustace)
UNNATURAL DEATH
CLOUDS OF WITNESS
GAUDY NIGHT
BUSMAN'S HONEYMOON
IN THE TEETH OF THE EVIDENCE
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK LORD PETER
VIEWS THE BODY ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions

will be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright
in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and
distribute it in the United States without permission and without
paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General
Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and
distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if
you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the
trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the
Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such
as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and
printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in
the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright
law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially
commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the

free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this
work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase
“Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of
the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or
online at www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand,
agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual
property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to
abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using
and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for
obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms
of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only

be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by
people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.
There are a few things that you can do with most Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the
full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There
are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™
electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and
help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright
law in the United States and you are located in the United
States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying,
distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works
based on the work as long as all references to Project
Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will
support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free
access to electronic works by freely sharing Project
Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this
agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms
of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with
its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it
without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside
the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to
the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying,
displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works
based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The
Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright
status of any work in any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project

Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project
Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed,
viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United

States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it
away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg
License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United
States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to
anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges.
If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of
paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use
of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth
in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and
distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder.
Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™
License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright
holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files
containing a part of this work or any other work associated with
Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute
this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1
with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the
Project Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if
you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project
Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or
other format used in the official version posted on the official
Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at
no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a
means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other
form. Any alternate format must include the full Project
Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™
works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or

providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that
s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and
discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project

Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different
terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain
permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™
trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3
below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on,
transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright
law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite
these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the
medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,”
such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt
data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other
medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES -

Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in
paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic
work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for
damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU
AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE,
STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH
OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH
1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER
THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR
ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE
OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF
THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If

you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of
receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you
paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you
received the work from. If you received the work on a physical
medium, you must return the medium with your written
explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the
defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu
of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or
entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.
If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund
in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set

forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’,
WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR
ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this
agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this
agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the
maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable
state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of
this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the

Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless
from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that
arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project
Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or
deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect
you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new
computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of
volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project
Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™
collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In
2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was
created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project
Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your
efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the
Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-
profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the
laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by
the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal
tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax
deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and
your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500

West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact
links and up to date contact information can be found at the
Foundation’s website and official page at
www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission
of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works
that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form
accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated
equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly
important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws

regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of
the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform
and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many
fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not
solicit donations in locations where we have not received written
confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or
determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit
www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states

where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know
of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from
donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot

make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations
received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp
our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current

donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a
number of other ways including checks, online payments and
credit card donations. To donate, please visit:
www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project

Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could
be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and

Theorising Urban Development From The Global South Anjali Karol Mohan Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Theorising Urban Development From The Global South Anjali Karol Mohan Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Theorising Urban Development From

the Global South Anjali Karol Mohan

Urban Planning in the Global South 1st ed. Edition

International Law and Development in the Global South

Deindustrialization, Distribution, and Development:

Informal Workers and Organized Action: Narratives From

Visual Politics in the Global South Anastasia Veneti

Social Policies and Emotions: A Look from the Global

Vanishing Borders of Urban Local Finance: Global

Disinformation in the Global South 1st Edition Herman

Juliana Gómez Aristizábal

ISBN 978-3-030-82474-7 ISBN 978-3-030-82475-4 (eBook)

calls to re-inventing planning theory and practice. As scholarly and policy

Several academics and scholars and practitioners participated in the

Bengaluru, India Anjali Karol Mohan

1 Introduction—Exploring Urban ‘Southernness’:

Part I The Homogeneous South: Emerging Planning

Part II The Heterogeneous South: Conflicting

Xavier Méndez Abad is a Ph.D. candidate at KU Leuven, Department

Banashree Banerjee is an architect, urban planner, researcher and

University of Cape Town (UCT) in South Africa. Currently he is an

the Rockefeller Foundation Bellagio Centre and a pioneer World Social

Sony Pellissery is Professor and Director of the Institute of Public

Oren Yiftachel teaches political geography and urban planning. He

Fig. 6.3 Participatory community mapping methods: community

Map 2.1 The Kolkata Metropolitan Area, with New Town

Map 2.3 Howrah–Bally in the Kolkata Metropolitan Area

Table 3.1 Distribution of population in different housing

Anjali Karol Mohan

© The Author(s) 2021 1

Scholars distance themselves from the notion of the Southern city as

models in order to discuss context-specific forms of practice, intervention

Speaking to the South as being simultaneously homogeneous and

1.2 The Southern Turn:

several scholars in this volume, imposed visions are subverted, adapted

The burgeoning body of Southern theory therefore anchors itself

1.3 The Simultaneously Homogeneous

1.3.1 The Homogeneous South: Emerging Planning Territories

categorization and control, instituted largely to direct urban growth. The

of a Mega-city: the Case of Urban Villages in Delhi’ draws them out at

by tensions between national-government imperatives, market pursuits

1.3.2 The Heterogeneous South: Conflicting Rationalities

(poverty, inequality, informality) that they embody are, in fact, conse-

spatial, historical and sociopolitical specificities. Representing the domi-

behind property-led urban regeneration, attracting creative residents and

of co-produced spatial production in Namibia to argue that these repre-

1.4.1 The Homogeneous South

drawn by the agency of the inhabitants in response to their social, polit-

and political objectives of various state–society–market stakeholders. Crit-

1.4.2 The Heterogeneous South

politics. The remaking of urban territories thus contributes incrementally

praxis—especially when their incremental acquisition of power goes unde-

Evidence of multiple peripheries (Khatua) or overlapping mosaics

Acknowledgements The author acknowledges the contribution of Sneha Maria

"He would answer to Hi!

The Hunting of the Snark.

I.5. TRANS.: Abbreviation of Translation; ref. to

"Even the scent of roses

G. K. Chesterton: The Song of Quoodle.

VI.7. ICTUS: Blow; add V (five) and you get VICTUS

11.I. PLAUD: If you would laud, then plaud (var. of

THE FIVE RED HERRINGS

THE UNPLEASANTNESS AT THE BELLONA CLUB