As architectural theory undergoes a process of review and updating, there is a rejection of prevailing binary distinctions found both in common perception and in architectural education. Traditional dichotomies such as center versus periphery, the 'formal' versus 'informal' city, and design as a rigid technique versus construction as improvisation have been persistent architectural themes, with a history of ongoing debates. Despite the dominance of global northern perspectives on what constitutes good architecture or how it should be approached, reality consistently reveals itself to be more intricate, diverse, and multidimensional.
In Brazil, the favela serves as an illustrative example of this phenomenon. Beyond considerations of urban organization, encompassing aspects like street layout, building subdivision, and construction methods that involve both material choices and the challenges of implementing structures on uneven terrain, these areas exhibit distinctive features. Notably, using slabs in construction introduces flexibility in building norms, fostering unconventional relationships with the city. These characteristics challenge conventional architectural standards and provide opportunities to reconsider the very principles underlying architectural 'best practices.'
It is worth remembering that this is not about exalting social and constructive precariousness or stating that the conditions in peripheral communities are 'enough' for their inhabitants. Urban requalification, building safety, environmental comfort, and mobility are universal principles that should govern design practices and public policies that affect the city. The question that arises is the flexibility of the construction elements, their use, and the possibility of remaking the relationship of the body in a given space, as well as its function, and whether or not it responds to the demands of its occupants, and how. Given this, what does spontaneous architecture (that which dispenses with academic knowledge) have to teach 'official,' that is, institutionalized, architecture?
Firstly, consider the versatile nature of certain architectural elements, such as the slab. While traditionally serving as a structural component, capable of functioning as a floor or roof, in the 'informal' city, its role expands beyond these conventional uses. The imperative for vertical construction, driven by housing density and the challenges of uneven terrain, transforms the utilitarian roof into a multifunctional space integral to the residents' social life and daily routines. Typically designated as the roof of a residence, it also doubles as a functional floor for various domestic activities, serving as an external, recreational, or service area. This space may be utilized for tasks like hanging clothes, housing water tanks, or installing antennas.
While the slab remains a functional covering, its role in more vulnerable neighborhoods differs from its counterparts in standard developments. In the latter scenario, terraces (or rooftops) typically have a well-defined purpose and are equipped accordingly with amenities such as leisure areas, gardens, gazebos, barbecue spaces, and party rooms. In contrast, slabs in more vulnerable neighborhoods serve several functions simultaneously, accommodating leisure activities while supporting house essentials such as hydraulic installations and domestic services.
Additionally, the slab serves the function of a street. Given the permeability between public and private spaces in peripheral communities, access to the slabs often connects directly to the street. This blurring of boundaries transforms slabs into pathways, used by children for recreation or as escape routes during police pursuits. One remarkable adaptation involves elevating street level and turning the slab into a street or sidewalk. Due to narrow or steep ground-level streets that impede vehicular circulation, transporting furniture or larger items becomes challenging. In response, residents ingeniously transport these objects over houses, across the slabs, connected by improvised and temporary bridges. This approach is akin to navigating a maze, connecting two points without following a predetermined layout, and potentially giving rise to a distinctive configuration with its peculiarities.
The situation of the slab is highly distinctive in its adaptability, to the extent that the space is regarded as an autonomous unit. At times, the slab transforms into a self-contained residence, detached from its original foundation, either for members of the same family or as a property sold between unrelated individuals. This parallel real estate market has significant social implications, prompting the issuance of a provisional measure in 2016. This measure was later formalized into law the following year and further regulated by decree in 2018. The purpose was to officially recognize the slab and include it in the list of rights outlined in the Civil Code.
In legal terms, this means that the Civil Code now acknowledges the legitimacy of the slab as a tradable real estate unit, aiming to formalize transactions that were already occurring at the margins of the existing social order. This recognition addresses the consequences of overlooking or disregarding specific social groups, neighborhoods, and rigid ideals regarding what constitutes a 'good' city. While this inclusion holds significance, particularly within the traditionally conservative and slow-to-adapt legal sphere, its impact may be limited if not complemented by social, economic, and urban support. The legal acknowledgment of the right to the slab implies its registration in the municipality, subjecting it to fiscal responsibilities, without necessarily improving the socio-economic conditions of the owner. The impact of the tax burden on the owner varies based on their economic vulnerability, potentially placing a disproportionate strain on their income compared to wealthier property owners. Additionally, if the legal recognition of the right to the slab is not accompanied by simultaneous urban improvements, and if the revenue does not contribute to enhancing spatial quality, the legal measure can inadvertently turn into a mechanism that fosters precarity and oppression.
The continual transformation of the slab illustrates alternative ways of inhabiting the city. When the adaptability of the slab—combining functions such as floor and roof, leisure and plumbing, laundry and gazebo, residence and (other) residence, street, and residence—becomes a normalized aspect of practical life and is officially recognized in the legal domain, it serves as compelling evidence that space is shaped by its occupants. The space adapts to the immediate needs of the occupant and should not be rigidly fixed to conform to a predetermined structure. The ongoing metamorphosis of the slab is an outcome of dynamic arrangements and negotiations, reflecting the broader dynamics at play in the entire city.
